Rodriguez v. Senor Frog's de la Isla, Inc.
642 F.3d 28
1st Cir.2011Background
- This is a diversity-based personal-injury action in the First Circuit arising from a 2004 rear-end collision in Puerto Rico, where Paloma Rodríguez obtained a $450,000 verdict against Señor Frog's de la Isla, Inc.
- Rodríguez sued for negligence and negligent entrustment under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, after Estrada—the other driver—rear-ended her while she sat near a tow scene.
- The district court held Rodríguez domiciled in California for diversity purposes, despite Puerto Rico ties and post-complaint events.
- Prior to trial, the in limine rulings barred evidence that Estrada owned the Mitsubishi or that Rodríguez had consumed beer shortly before the crash; Señor Frog stipulated Mitsubishi ownership near trial, and the jury was informed accordingly.
- After trial, Señor Frog moved for a new trial or remittitur, which the district court denied in an unexplained order.
- The First Circuit affirmed the judgment in full, sustaining the district court’s diversity ruling, evidentiary rulings, and denial of remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity jurisdiction: Rodríguez's domicile at filing | Rodríguez was California domiciled | Judge's domicile finding was clearly erroneous | Diversity upheld; California domicile sustained |
| Admissibility of beer and Mitsubishi ownership evidence | Beer evidence should have been admitted | Evidence excluded as probative vs. prejudicial | Beer evidence exclusion affirmed; ownership stipulation limits challenge |
| Instruction on contributory/comparative negligence | Judge should have given instructions | Puerto Rico is comparative-negligence; instruction unnecessary | Record insufficient to review due to lack of final charge transcript; issue disposed without reversal |
| Remittitur/new-trial standards | Court should grant remittitur due to excessive award | Remittitur denied; award not clearly excessive | Remittitur challenge collapsed for lack of full record; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla-Mangual v. Pavía Hosp., 516 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2008) (mixed question of law and fact; appellate review standard)
- García Pérez v. Santaella, 364 F.3d 348 (1st Cir. 2004) (domicile and diversity standards; post-suit conduct may bear on sincerity of intent)
- Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Montle, 964 F.2d 48 (1st Cir. 1992) (Bank One factors for domicile analysis; no minimum residency period required)
- Bielunas v. F/V Misty Dawn, Inc., 621 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2010) (per diem damages arguments and preservation in appeals; standard for remittitur/claims)